wmmmmmmmimh 



UBRARY OF CONGRESS 



ODOQB^bQT^T 



•i 







*' ^n '* "-"^^ i' n-' 



'^ 









.^''*.."'«'^-*t 



■.'?•'' ^ J 






^*^ 



.0^ ..l/,^7^. q 






'^O 



- ■ - At "^ \. 






Pi 



«7 IV 






1;°. ^v- 

< , c 



"^O. 







KENTUCKY'S STRUGGLE WITH ITS 
LOYALIST PROPRIETORS 



BY 

WILBUR H. SIEBERT 




Reprinted from the Mississippi 
Valley Historical Review 
Vol. VII, No. 2, Sept., 1920 



t-Z^ 



7 



2^G^ 



KENTUCKY'S STRUGGLE WITH ITS LOYALIST 
PROPRIETORS 

Contrary to the traditional view, Virginia had among its peo- 
ple a largo proportion of torios or loyalists in tho revolutionary 
days, besides many who behaved like loyalists when the British 
forces were at hand. This has been fully demonstrated by Mr. 
John A. George in his dissertation for the master's degree sub- 
mitted to the faculty of Richmond college in June, 1913, and 
l)ul)lishe(l in part in the Riclniwud college historical papers in 
June, li)lG. The conclusions of Mr. George are fully confirmed 
by Professor H. J. Eckenrode of tho same institution in his 
volume, The revolution in Virginia, also published in 1916. 

As Kentucky formed a part of the old dominion in those stir- 
ring times, this paper becomes supplementary to the valuable 
treatises just mentioned. Lord Duimiore, as is well kno^\^l, was 
the leader of the loyalists in eastern Virginia until he and hun- 
dreds of his followers sought refuge aboard the king's ships at 
Norfolk on December 14, 1775. For several years before that 
disastrous episode his lordship liad been issuing patents for 
more or less extensive tracts of land in the county of West Fin- 
castle, including Kentucky, to numerous persons, among whom 
may easily be idontifiod at least a few loyalists. One of these 
was Dr. John Connolly, who lived near Fort Pitt, where he seems 
to have owned a "jjatrimonial estate." According to his own 
account he sold this estate and bought land in Virginia. At any 
rate, he acquired 4,000 acres of land opposite the falls of the 
Ohio in December, 1773, and entered upon a project with Colonel 
John Campbell, who obtained an adjoining tract, to found a 
town at the falls. In fact, the plat for this town — the future 
city of Louisville — had been surveyed in the previous August 
by Captain Thomas Bullitt, and lots wore first advertised for 
sale by the proprietors in the following April.' 

> Clarence M. Burton, "John Connolly, a fory of the revolution," in Proccedinrjs 
of the American antujuttrUm societi/, now scrips, 20:71 ff. ; Reuben T. Durrett, The 
oentrnary of LouiitUlc (FiUon club publications number 8 — Louisville, 1893), 23-27, 
131, 133. 



114 Wilbur H. Siebert ^- ^'- H- «• 

Other loyalists who acquired land in Kentucky about the same 
time were Captain Alexander ]\IcKee, the deputy superintendent 
of Indian affairs at Fort Pitt; Simon Girty, the interpreter to 
the Six nations at the same post ; and Joseph Browster of West- 
moreland county, Pennsylvania. ]\IcKee secured his grant of 
2,000 acres on the south branch of Elkhorn creek in June, 1774; 
Girty became the possessor of three tracts of 300 acres each, 
according to his own sworn statement, but he does not mention 
their locations ; and Browster purchased 1,000 acres of improved 
land on a visit to Kentucky before the revolution, but his widow, 
who tells of the transaction, fails to state where the purchase 
lay. She relates, however, that in removing to the west her 
family was attacked and forced to take refuge at St. Vincent, and 
that her husband was soon after killed by an Indian guide who 
was conducting him to Detroit, a fact referred to in a testimo- 
nial which she had from Dr. Connolly, who had known Browster 
and had on one occasion sutfered imprisonment with him.- 

Besides these few loyalists who held land in Kentucky but 
never lived there, the names are known of but two others who 
appear in the revolutionary annals of the state. One of these 
was the Reverend John Lji;he, the Anglican missionary at Har- 
rodsburg, who served as a member of the house of delegates of 
the Transylvania company and read the customary prayers for 
the king and the royal family of England on Sunday, ]\Iay 27, 
1775, at the end of the session of the delegates. It must be 
added that Lythe's loyalism was promptly dissipated within 
a week by the arrival of the news of the battle of Lexington. 
The other loyalist was Dr. John F. D. Smythe, who came on 
horseback to Boonesborough a few days later as an emissary of 
Dunmore, though he did not divulge this to his host, Judge 
Richard Henderson, the head of the Transylvania company. To 
him he explained only that he was collecting material for a book 

2 Durrett, The centenary of Louisville, 28; Reuben T. Durrett, Bryant's station and 
the memorial proceedings held on its site under the artspices of the Lexington chapter, 
D. A. E., August the 18th, 1896, in honor of its heroic mothers and daughters (Filson 
club publications number 12 — Louisville, 1897), 30, note; 111, note; George W. 
Banck, BoonesborougK Its founding, pioneer struggles, Indian experiences, Tran- 
sylvania days, and revolutionary annals (Filson club publications number 16 — Louis- 
ville, 1901), 180-183; licport of the bureau of archives for the province of Ontario 
(Toronto, 1904-1914), number 2, part 2, p. 1282; part 1, p. 477. 



Gift 
Author 



Vol. VII, No. 2 Kentucky's Loyalist Proprietors 115 

of travels. Thus he gained the opportunity during the several 
weeks of his sojourn to go among the Shauniee and other Ohio 
Indians for the purpose of securing their cooperation with the 
loyalists in suppressing rebellion in tiie west. In his notes 
Smythe recorded his conviction tliat the Kentucky woodsmen 
were too proud and insolent "to be styled servants even of His 
Majesty."^ 

The mission of Dr. Smythe to Boonesborough and the region 
north of the Ohio river was ominous for the future. Naturally, 
tile savages resented the occupation of their favorite hunting 
grounds by the white men and, although a treaty of peace and 
neutrality was signed between the western tribes and the com- 
missioners of congress at Pittsburgh in the autumn of 1775, 
"Captain" Pluggj', the Mohawk leader of a band of miscreants 
living on the upper Olentangy, accompanied by several braves 
and two Shawniee guides, appeared on the Kentucky river and 
fired upon three persons near Boonesborough, December 23, 
1775.* 

In the following May and June the inhabitants of "Transyl- 
vania" presented petitions to the Virginia convention asking 
that steps be taken "to prevent the inroads of Savages" and to 
erect "West Fincastle into a new county, despite the king's proc- 
lamation excluding settlers therefrom. The expressed fear of 
the petitioners was that if left under royal control the region in 
question might "afford a safe asylum to those whose principles 
are inimical to American liberty." In answer to these petitions 
three new counties were created in December, 1776, one of these 
being Kentucky county.' 

Meantime, some of tlie Ohio Indians had been committing 
depredations in Kentucky to such an extent that McClelland 's 
station, the last fort north of the Kentuckj^ river, was aban- 

> RanoJi, Boonesborough, 28, 31-33. 

* Biennial report of the department of archives and history of the state of West 
Virpinia. 10111914 (Charleston, 1914), 40; The revolution on the upper Ohio, 1775- 
1777, piiiteil by Roubcn G. Thwaites and Louise P. Kellogg (Madison, 1908), lOO, 
102, 143; Ranck, Boonesborough, 45, 46. 

^Petitions of the early inhabitants of Keniuely to the general assembly of 
Virginia, 1769 to 179!, edited by James B. Robertson {Filson club publications num- 
ber 27 — Louisville, 1914), 38, 39; William W. Hening, Statutes at large, being a 
collection of all the laws of rirginia, 1619 to 179S (Richmond, 1819-1823), 9: 257; 
Banck, Boonesborough, 48, 54. 



116 Wilbur H. Siebert m.v.h.r. 

doned in the same month in which the new counties were erected. 
That the red men had been incited to these hostilities was not 
doubted by many, for the report had gained wide currency in 
May that the Wyandot, Ottawa, and other Indians had recently 
been at Detroit, where they had received presents from the 
British commandant. Lieutenant Governor Henry Hamilton. 
With the opening of the spring of 1777 the attacking war bands 
only increased in size and daring. Late in April Boonesbor- 
ough, "the big fort," which had been left unassailed hitherto, 
was attacked by a party of fifty or more warriors, and early in 
July it was besieged during two days and nights by 200 Indians. 
Conditions were surely not improved by the murder late in Sep- 
tember of the Shawnee chief. Cornstalk, and three of his tribes- 
men at Fort Randolph (Point Pleasant) by members of the gar- 
rison in hasty revenge for the death of a comrade stricken out- 
side the post by the stealthy shot of lurking savages. Hamilton 
at Detroit was not slow in taking advantage of the outraged feel- 
ings of the Slla^\^lee tribe. Before the winter had passed he 
sent two French Canadians to engage eighty or more of the 
Shawnee in another attempt to seize Boonesborough. They 
readily consented, and on their way southward, February 7, 
1778, had the good fortune to capture Daniel Boone, who had a 
camp of salt-makers near by at the lower Blue licks. The 
tribesmen easily secured the rest of the campers through the 
intervention of Boone, who saw the folly of resistance and per- 
suaded his men to surrender.® 

The Shawnee at once gave up their expedition against Boones- 
borough, returned with their captives to their villages at Little 
Chillicothe, and on March 10 started with eleven of their pris- 

The revolution on the upper Ohio, 177S-1777 (Thwaites and Kellogg, eds.), 175, 
note 6; 177, note 11; 187, 188, 236, 242, 247; James G. M. Kamsey, The annals of 
Tennessee, to the end of the eighteenth century: comprixinii its settlement, as the 
Watauga assoeiation, from 1769 to 1777 ; a part of North-Carolina, from 1777 to 17S4 ; 
the state of Franklin, from 1784 to 1788; a part of North-Carolina, from 1788 to 
1790; the territory of the U. States, south of the Ohio, from 1790 to 1796; the state 
of Tennessee, from 1796 to 1800 . . . (Philadelphia, 1853), 148 S.; Ranck, 
Boonesborough, 49-52, 54, 56-61; Alexander S. Withers, Chronicles of border warfare; 
or, a history of the settlement by the whites of northwestern Virginia, and of the 
Indian tears and massacres in that section of the state; with reflections, anecdotes. 
. . . edited by Reuben G. Thwaites (Cincinnati, 1903), 173, 209, 211-214, 236, 
266; Frontier defense on the upper Ohio, 1777-1773, edited by Reuben G. Thwaites 
and Louise P. Kellogg (Madison, 1912), 149, passim. 



Vol. VII, No. 2 Kentucky's Loyalist Proprietors 117 

oners, including Boone, for Detroit. Here the famous Ken- 
tuckian was woU roceivod by Ilaniiltitii, to whom he told a pitiful 
tale of the starviufj and nearly naked condition of the settlers 
south of the Ohio, who, he added, were without the prospect of 
relief from congress. The commandant offered a large price 
for Boone and, failing to effect the jiurchase, sought his favor 
by presenting him with a horse and trappings. 

On April 28, not long after the departure of Boone and the 
Indians, Hamilton wrote to Sir Guy Carleton in regard to the 
Keutucklans: "Their dilemma will probably induce them to 
trust to the savages, who liave shown so much humanity to their 
prisoners, and come to this place before winter. ' ' In the follow- 
ing June Boone escaped from his captors upon the horse he had 
received from Hamilton. At the end of the same summer the 
British commandant undertook to win over the inhabitants of 
Boonesborough for the king or, if necessary, to capture them, 
lie therefore dispatched Lieutenant Antoine de Quindre and 
other French Canadians, with a supply of ammunition and the 
English and French flags, to assist Chief Black Fish in assem- 
bling a force of over four hundred Indians, mostly Shawnee, to 
proceed to the big fort. On arriving there, September 7, a 
messenger advanced to ask a parley over letters which he had 
brought from Governor Hamilton to Captain Boone. The ne- 
gotiations lasted three days, on the last of which the principal 
men of the fort signed a treaty' renouncing their allegiance to 
the United States and renewing their fealty to the king, on con- 
dition that the Indians, who outnumbered the garrison eleven to 
one, would withdraw immediately. But instead, the treacher- 
ous red men attempted to seize and detain the whites, though 
without success. After repeated assaults on the stronghold the 
Indians tunneled from the bank of the Kentucky river to within 
twenty yards of the fort, but successive rains stopped their oper- 
ations and filled their mine with sunken earth. Having failed 
in tiieir nine days' siege, the Shawnee army broke into detach- 
ments, whieii had to content themselves with ravaging about 
other stations. Such was the dismal outcome of Hamilton's 
plan to convert tiie inhabitants of Boonesborough into loyalists 
preparatory to their reception at Detroit.^ 

' Ranck, Boonesborough, 68-104 ; Petitions of the early inhabitants of Kentucky to 
th« general assembly of rirginia, 1796 to 179S (Bobertson, ed.), 44, 45; Withers, 



118 Wilbur H. Siebert m.v.h.b. 

Captain Boone, indeed, did not escape the open accusation of 
being a tory and a traitor. Colonel Richard Callaway, and 
probably others, charged him with having sought to aid the 
British by favoring the peace treaty at Boonesborough and hav- 
ing caused the surrender of the salt-makers at the lower Blue 
licks. Boone was accordingly tried by court-martial at Lo- 
gan's station, but maintained that these acts were stratagems 
dictated by military necessity and was acquitted. He was fur- 
ther vindicated a little later by being promoted to the rank of 
major.* 

The years 1779 and 1780 witnessed a remarkable emigration 
from the communities on the upper Ohio and to the eastward 
into Kentucky. In May of the latter year one obser\'er of this 
movement. Colonel Daniel Brodhead at Pittsburgh, estimated 
that the Kentucky settlements would be able to turn out 15,000 
men and ventured the opinion that the villainous Sha^\^lee and 
their allies w^ould soon find troublesome neighbors in that quar- 
ter. It is not to be supposed that all these newcomers were 
patriots, especially as tory plots were being disclosed and sup- 
pressed from time to time in the regions from which they came. 
Late in 1780 one visitor to Kentucky went so far as to say in a 
letter to Colonel George Morgan: "Should the English go 
there and offer them protection from the Indians, the greatest 
part will join." It was not to Kentucky, however, but to De- 
troit that Captain McKee and Simon Girty, together with sev- 
eral of their fellow loyalists, fled from Fort Pitt on the night of 
March 28, 1778. They passed through the intervening Indian 
country and arrived at their destination about two months later. 
They thus escaped the penalties which their discovered plotting 
entailed and, being taken into the Indian department, they sup- 
planted the French Canadians as leaders of loyalist and Indian 
war parties against the frontier. For the next seventeen months 
they carried on their depredations in the region they had recent- 
ly left and then turned their attention to that into which the 
tide of settlers was now pouring.' 

Chronicles of border warfare (Thwaites, ed.), 268-270; Frontier defense on the upper 
Ohio, 1777-1778 (Tliwaitca and Kellogg, eds.), 283, 284. 

8 Ranck, Boone.ihorouffh, 104, 105. 

9 Frontier retreat on the upper Ohio, 1770-1781 , edited by Louise P. Kellogg {Wis- 
consin historical collections, volume 24 — Madison, 1917), 21, 22, 41, 149, 163, 164, 



Vol. VII, No. 2 Kentucky's Loyalist Proprietors 119 

The first report that Simon Girty was with the Indians on the 
Kentucky border gained credence in tlie latter part of May, when 
John Bowman, lieutenant of Kentucky county, led 250 volun- 
teers against the ShawTiee town of Little Chillicothe on the Little 
Miami river. The rumor that Girty was approaching at the 
head of 100 Sliawnee threw Bowman's men into general disorder 
for a brief time, but they I'ecovered themselves, defeated the 
enemy, and burned most of the village and crops. In the fol- 
lowing autumn Simon Girty 's brothers, James and George, ad- 
vanced with about 170 Wyandot warriors down the Little Miami 
to the spot where Cincinnati now stands and there, on October 

4, engaged Colonel David Rogers' flotilla of five boats, which 
was on its way from St. Louis up the Ohio with a store of goods 
and ammunition. The Indians killed some forty of the whites, 
took a few prisoners, and carried off nmch booty. Thereafter 
small skinnishes with the Indians appear to have become more 
common on the border than ever." 

The capture of Hamilton by Colonel George Rogers Clark at 
Vincennes in February, 1779, and the appointment of Major A. 

5. de Peyster as the former's successor at Detroit did not change 
the i)olioy of emi)loyiiig loyalists to lead the expeditions against 
Kentucky. In the early summer of that year De Peyster sent 
from his post a force of 150 tories and Canadians with two can- 
non and 100 tribesmen from the upper lakes under the com- 
mand of Captain Henry Bird, a Virginian, with the three Girtys 
as aides. On the Miami they were joined by Captain McKee 
and 600 more Indians. These combined forces were to proceed 
against Clark, who was now stationed at the falls of the Ohio. 
Tiie Indians, however, refused to go and confront the victor of 
Hamilton, choosing rather to attack the forts up tlie Licking. 
On June 22, Ruddle's station, with its 300 inmates, surrendered 
at the sound of the enemy's fieldpieces. Fifty more prisoners 

168, 176, 209, note 1; 277; Wilbur H. Siobert, "The tory proprietors of Kentucky 
lands," in Ohio archaeological and historical quarterly, 28: 48-71. 

'" Withers. Chrnniclex of border warfare (Thwaites, e(i.), 271-27.'?; Consul W. 
Butterfleld, History of the Girtys; bein<j a concise account of the Girty brothers — 
Thomas, Simon, James and George, and of tlicir half-brother John Turner — also of 
the part taken by them in Lord Dunmore's war, in the western border war of the 
refolution, and in the Indian war of 1790-95; with a recital of the principal events 
in the west during these wars . . . (Cincinnati, 1890), 113; Frontier retreat on 
the upper Ohio, 1779-1781 (KeUogg, ed.), 17, 79-94, 105, 123. 



120 Wilbur H. Siebert m.V.h.e. 

were secured at Martin's station five miles farther on. Famine 
now ensued and drove the invaders home. Captain Bird took 
with his contingent Captain Isaac Euddle and his company, all 
of whom remained in captivity at Detroit until November 3, 
1782. The Indians, with their share of the prisoners, scattered 
to their several villages. There may be some justice in the 
criticism made at the time that widespread disaffection among 
the settlers was responsible for the surrender of the two stations. 
At any rate, many of the pioneers are said to have moved into 
the interior rather than volunteer for offensive operations 
against the Indians and the tories." 

During the first week of August, 1780, Colonels Clark, Slaugh- 
ter, and Logan led forth their respective divisions, which to- 
gether numbered about one thousand men, to take vengeance on 
the Shawnee for the descent upon the two Licking stations. They 
found Little Chillicothe partly deserted and still burning, the 
Indians having been forewarned by a deserter from Logan's 
division. James Girty and 300 warriors made more than a show 
of defense, but could not withstand the determined fighting of 
the borderers and retreated.^^ 

We may pass over the numerous raids into Kentucky during 
the next twelvemonth or more. One only, about the middle of 
September, 1781, was conducted by a loyalist, namely. Captain 
McKee, who was accompanied by Chief Brant, head of the Six 
nations. With a large following of Hurons and Miami these 
experienced fighters appeared at Boone's station and there de- 
feated Colonel John Floyd and a company of men from the 
stations on Bear Grass creek." 

Under tory leadership the savages had thus far won an al- 
most unbroken series of successes over the Kentuckians. If 
they had obeyed the orders of their white captains, they might 
no doubt have gained more sweeping victories, but again and 

n Withers, Chronicles of border warfare (Thwaites, ed.), 254, note; 285, 286, 294- 
299; Ranck, Boonesborough, 118, 119; Petitwns of the early inliabitants of Kentucky 
to the general assembly of Virginia, 1769 to 1792, p. 168; Frontier retreat on the 
upper Ohio, 1779-17S1 (Kellogg, ed.), 22, 186, 187, 192, 265, 266. 

12 Withers, Chronicles of border warfare (Thwaites, ed.), 305-308; Frontier retreat 
on the upper Ohio, 1779-1781 (Kellogg, ed.), 374, 375. 

i3Durrett, The centenary of Louisville, 57-59; Durrett, Bryant's station and the 
memorial proceedings held on its site, 84; Frontier retreat on the upper Ohio, 1779- 
1781 (Kellogg, ed.), 374, 375. 



VoLVll,No.2 Kentucky's Loyalist Proprietors 121 

again thoy had willfully turned back when their campaign was 
but half finished. At lonf^th, in June, 1782, they threw away 
their final chance of spreading desolation among the settlements 
south of the Ohio. At that time 1,100 Indians of eight different 
nations were assembled at Wakitamiki — now Zanesfield, Logan 
county, Ohio — under the command of Captain William Cald- 
well and were there joined by Captain Andrew Bradt and sixty 
loyalist rangers from Detroit, Captain McKee, Simon and 
(roorge Oirty, and Mattliew Elliott of the Indian department at 
the northern post. This host is said to have outnumbered the 
whole force of fighting men in Kentucky at the time. Its size 
is doubtless explained by the fact that it was to be employed 
in destroying an invading force led by George Rogers Clark. 
Wlien intelligence was brought in that Clark's army was no- 
where about, three-fourths of the tribesmen returned to their 
to\vus and villages. The other fourth and the loyalist rangers 
crossed the Ohio river with Simon Girty, defeated Captain John 
Holder and his men at the upper Blue licks on August 15, and 
then laid siege to Bryant's station. While the Indians occupied 
themselves with burning several cabins, killing cattle, and de- 
stroying crops, Girty proclaimed pardon and protection to all 
inmates of the fort who would swear allegiance to the king, on 
condition that they would capitulate. Unlike the garrison of 
Boonesborough, which had been offered similar terms nearly 
four years before, the men at Bryant's flatly refused the offer, 
and Girty with his tories and Indians took the trail back to the 
Blue licks on the night of August 16. At this time, according 
to Girty, nearly 100 warriors left him. On August 19 about 180 
Kentuekians crossed the Licking river in pursuit of the invaders, 
who were now lying in ambush in the wooded ravines surround- 
ing the open ridge in front. Most of the advancing party had 
dismounted and were ascending the ridge on foot, when they 
received a volley which killed perhaps forty of them. The sav- 
ages then threw themselves upon the Kentuekians' animals and 
succeeded in cutting down thirty more victims and capturing 
others. The rest of the borderers fled back across the river, 
those in the lead being halted by Major Benjamin Netherland 
long enough to turn and fire on the pursuing Indians, who were 
thus driven to cover for a brief interval, while the fugitives es- 



122 Wilbur H. Siebert m.v.h.e. 

caped into the woods and so to their several stations. On the 
next day the loyalists and Indians crossed the Ohio, the latter 
going on to their camps and the former to Wakitamiki. A few 
days later Caldwell and McKee sent reports to Detroit in which 
the number of Kentuckians killed and captured was doubled. In 
reply came an order from De Peyster, in conformity with the re- 
cent manifesto of the commander in chief of the British forces, 
Sir Guy Carleton, to make no more incursions into the enemy's 
comitry. Nevertheless, during the next fourteen years, or as 
long as the northern posts remained in British hands, Kentucky 
suffered from occasional forays and outrages at the hands of the 
savages. The sequel of the massacre at the Blue licks was enacted 
in the early days of November, 1782, when George Eogers Clark 
with 1,050 men destroyed the town and the winter stores of the 
Miami, while the Indians took to their heels despite Captain 
McKee 's efforts to persuade them to stay and fight." 

It has been seen above that the Kentuckians suffered the cruel- 
ties of border warfare in greater degree than before, after the 
leadership of the tribes to the northward passed to those loyal- 
ists who o-wned lands in "Transylvania." In May, 1779, the 
Virginia assembly enacted the law of escheats and forfeitures, 
under which such estates were liable to confiscation and sale for 
the profit of the state. This policy might easily work out in 
such a way as to yield no benefit, if it did not do actual injustice, 
to some of the inhabitants of Kentucky. Eepresentative Ken- 
tuckians, however, were alive to their local interests and, 
through their skillful advocacy of those interests, were able to 
gain immediate or prospective advantages at the expense of the 
loyalist proprietors, whose destruction in battle would have been 
a more welcome recompense. 

It was not until a year after the passage of the act of escheats 
and forfeitures that the inhabitants of Kentucky took measures 
to secure to themselves the estates in question. The land at the 
falls of the Ohio surveyed and patented for Dr. Connolly, who 
had been Lord Dunmore's chief ally at Pittsburgh and a pris- 
oner in the hands of the Americans from November, 1775, until 

i-> Durrett, Bryant's station and the memorial proceedings held on its site, 87-90, 
91-123, 134-209, 211-215; George W. Ranck, "Girty, the white Indian; a study in 
early western history," in Maqasine of American history, 15:256-277; Buttcrfield, 
History of the Girtys, 193, 194, 198, 200, 205, 208. 



Vol. VII, No. 2 Kentuckij's Lotjalist Proprietors 123 

his excliaiige in October, 1780, was brought to the attention of 
the Virginia assembly by a petition on May 1 of the latter year. 
This petition came from the settlers at the falls, who desired an 
act establishing their town as planned by them and validating 
the titles to their lots, which would otherwise be liable to con- 
liscation and sale under the act of escheats and forfeitures 
passed in May, 1771). Accordingly, the assembly enacted a law 
one year later, vesting 1,000 acres of Connolly's survey in a 
board of trustees for the town of Louisville, and authorizing the 
sale of lots at auction. Curiously enough, an escheating jury, 
of which Daniel Boone was a member, met at Lexington on the 
same day and rendered a verdict of forfeiture against Connolly 
for joining tlie subjects of the king of his owni free will.'" 

in December, 1780, Lieutenant Colonel Connolly had sailed 
from New York with the Queen's rangers, a well-known tory 
corps, for Yorkto^\^l, and soon after had been placed in com- 
mand of the loyalists of Virginia and North Carolina on the 
peninsula formed by tlie James river and the Chesapeake bay. 
In September, 1781, lie had again been taken prisoner and had 
been sent to Philadelphia three months later. In the following 
March he had been paroled and sent to Now York, on condition 
tiiat he woulil di'itart for England. lie appears to have spent 
the next five years in Great Britain, but bj^ 1788 he was in De- 
troit, having returned by way of Quebec. He had not yet given 
up hope of recovering the west for the English cro^\■n, and was 
therefore ready to believe the tale that the people of Kentucky 
wished to free themselves from the United States government. 
Under the pretext that he had come to look after his confiscated 
estate, Connolly appeared at Louisville on October 25, 1788. 
Ho revealed the real object of his visit a day or two later in a 
joint interview with Colonel Thomas Marshall and Judge George 
Muter. lie told these two men in substance that the Canadian 
governor-general. Lord Dorcliester, formerly Sir Guy Carleton, 
was ready to aid the westerners by arming and paying any force 
they might raise for the purpose of wresting the control of the 
Mississippi and of New Orleans from the Spaniards, that he 
would send from 5,000 to 10,000 men to join them, and that he 

I'Durrett, The centenary of LotiisviUe, 50-56, 149-154; Petitions of the early in- 
habitants of Kentucly to the general assembly of Virginia, 1769 to 1791 (Bobertson, 
ed.), 53-55; Hening, Statutes at large, 10: 293-295. 



124 Wilbur H. Siebert ^- ^'- h. R. 

would dispatch a fleet to cooperate with this land force in the 
conquest of Now Orleans. Colonel Marshall states that he in- 
formed Connolly that as long as the savages continued to com- 
mit cruelties on the defenseless frontier of Kentucky and to be 
"received as friends and allies by the British at Detroit," it 
would be impossible to convince the people of the good inten- 
tions of Lord Dorchester. From General James Wilkinson, with 
whom Connolly conversed on November 8, the latter learned not 
only that "the British were greatly disliked in Kentucky," but 
also that he might be killed if his mission were discovered. The 
emissary from Detroit now begged for an escort, which was 
provided, and he recrossed the Ohio river, November 20, on his 
return journey.^* 

The clearing of the titles of the early settlers of Louisville 
Avas accomplished at the expense of Dr. Connolly, as already 
noted. This was a simple act of justice to those who had bought 
their lots in good faith from an original proprietor. At almost 
the same moment that these purchasers were presenting their 
petition for relief to the Virginia assembly — a petition in which 
they stated with clearness and force the commercial and other 
benefits to be secured by the establishment of their towai — the 
Eeverend John Todd of Virginia and his nephew. Colonel John 
Todd of Kentucky, persuaded the assembly to set aside other 
loyalist estates for the cause of public education. It was in 
May, 1780, that the assembly passed the "act to vest certain 
escheated lands in the County of Kentucke in trustees for a 
Publick School." The lands thus applied were Captain Alex- 
ander McKee's 2,000 acres on the south branch of Elkhorn creek, 
Henry Collins' 3,000 acres near Lexington, and Robert Mc- 
Kenzie's 3,000 acres, called the military survey, at the mouth 
of Harrod's creek. McKenzie was an officer of the Forty- third 

16 Burton, "John Connolly, a tory of the revolution," in Proceedings of the 
American antiquarian society, now series, 20: 71 ff.; Siebert, "The tory proprietors 
of Kentucky lands," in Ohio archaeological and hi-Ktorical quarterly, 28:48-71; John 
M. Brown, The political heyinnings of Kentucky {Filson club publications number 6 
— Louisville, 1889), 182-184; Mann Butler, A history of the commonwealth of Ken- 
tucky, from its exploration and settlement by the whites, to the close of tlie north- 
western campaign, in 1813 ; with an introduction exhibiting the settlement of western 
Virginia . . . in 17S6, to the treaty of Camp Charlotte . . . in 1774 (Cin- 
cinnati and Louisville, 1836), 184. 



Voi.vn,No.2 Kentucliifs Loyalist Proprietors 125 

regiment of foot in the British army when he was wounded at 
Bunker hill.'' 

Even at the end of the revolution not all tHe confiscated estates 
in Kentucky had been disposed of and, although the school had 
not yet been started, there was still opportunity to increase its 
endowment from this source. Colonel Caleb Wallace, a Ken- 
tuckian in the assembly, saw the opportunity, and in 1783 se- 
cured the passage of an act giaiitiiig all escheated lands in the 
district of Kentucky "not to exceed twenty thousand acres" to 
the jiroposed school, thus adding 12,000 acres to the earlier grant 
of 8,000 acres. The new act conferred by regular charter upon 
an enlarged board of trustees "all the powers and privileges 
that are now enjoyed by the visitors or governors of any college 
or university within the State." The school when established 
was to bear the name "Transylvania seminary" and, evidently 
in view of the fact that Indian hostilities had not ceased, both 
teachers and students were to be exempt from militia duties. 
Another reminder of the subsiding struggle is to be found in 
the presence on the board of trustees of Colonel George Rogers 
Clark.'' 

Something more than the "guarantee of permanency" fur- 
nished by the land grants was needed before Transylvania sem- 
inary could be opened to students. The trustees found it neces- 
sary, therefore, to appoint a committee to solicit funds, books, 
and apjiaratus, ajid they also received one-sixth of all sui-veyor's 
fees collected in the Kentucky district. They were thus enabled 
to employ a master and open the seminary in a private house 
near Danville, P^'bniary 1, 1785. Several years later the trus- 
tees decided to remove the school to Lexington, where it first 
received students June 1, 1789. Here in Lexington the institu- 
tion was to find its abiding place, erect buildings to meet its 
growing needs, develop new departments, combine with other 
institutions, graduate thousands of students, become almost 
dormant during the civil war, and, after discontinuing its several 

if Transylvania college hyUletin, 40: 16, 17; Robert and Johanna Peter, Transyl- 
vania university. Its origin, rise, decline, and fall {Filson club publications number 
11 — Louisville, 1896), 20-22, 38-41. 

IS Transylvanui college bulletin, 40: 17-20, 22-25; Kentucky Gazette, June 6, 1789, 
April 26, 1790 ; Peter, Transylvania imivcrsity, 49-52, 64, 66-71, 175-177. 



126 Wilhur H. Siehert m.v.h.r. 

departments, sundve as Transylvania coUege. Thus the begin- 
nings of the city of Louisville and of the famous old college at 
Lexington, "the oldest permanent institution of learning west of 
the Alleghenies," may be ascribed to the struggle of Kentucky 
with its loyalist proprietors. The lands confiscated from these 
proprietors by the Virginia assembly were in both cases, chiefly 
through the efforts of Kentuckians, turned to excellent and en- 
during uses. 

Wilbur H. Siebert 

Ohio State University 
Columbus, Ohio 



ZS W 



-fu. ^ ►*« 









-ov^' 










































. "^0' o 



'»>,1.* 






I' *> 



h.". U <^ *^lfe'- ^.p -i*^ 




^..^^ ;^M^"» "^-^..^^ 













/ J''\ ,'^^•V ^s'^'V, 






."-CCyN r f 






mn 



mmmmnm 



